There are only two things in this world:
- The truth: also known as my perspective, obtained through reading the free press of our glorious West.
- Propaganda: also known as anything different than my perspective, obtained by other people through psychic powers through which the Russians and the Chinese get into their brains.
They will never ever call that "their perspective" though, at most they will call it "consensus".
Will accepting the truth go against their material interests? If so, get ready for some insane justifications.
Most people here are not capitalists. They're workers like us and would benefit from socialism. But they've been subjected to nationalist and capitalist propaganda their entire lives, and that makes socialism become the boogeyman. It makes it hard for them to see how much they would benefit.
I don't disagree. Workers mostly are too busy working to argue. There are very few working class people that I couldn't relate to and convince them of at least a few socialist principles.
The people I have a tough time with are people that have nice homes in nice suburbs (mostly boomers) and tons of disposable income to buy goods made by cheap labor. Sure it might be propaganda, but the propaganda aligns with their lifestyle and makes it more digestible.
The most vociferous capitalists I have met are actually well off tech bros that make fun of you if you think things like insulin should be offered at cost or free.
The people I have a tough time with are people that have nice homes in nice suburbs (mostly boomers) and tons of disposable income to buy goods made by cheap labor. Sure it might be propaganda, but the propaganda aligns with their lifestyle and makes it more digestible.
Solidarity among that type is very rare but it can and does exist. Otherwise they wouldn't have to make up terms like "champagne socialist" to disparage people who think this way.
I don't disagree. Just chiming in to say it's funny how students/recent graduates get called champagne socialists because they were never coal miners (usually, anyway, I'm sure there are exceptions).
Best response to that I've heard is "I'm not fermenting revolution in the Champagne region of France, so at most I'm a Sparkling Marxist."
I agree, and if you look deeper into the joke, perhaps too deep, they are saying that if you aren't a miserable and suffering worker, it's hypocritical to advocate for them hinting that you should only advocate for those in your class.
The thing is that the champagne socialist argument is usually brought up by caviar capitalists.
The people I have a tough time with are people that have nice homes in nice suburbs (mostly boomers) and tons of disposable income to buy goods made by cheap labor. Sure it might be propaganda, but the propaganda aligns with their lifestyle and makes it more digestible.
its a shame because these are sometimes skilled workers and any future socialist society would depend on them to some extent to apply their skills to building the next mode of production. that said, maybe 5-10% (made up stat but just based on what I see at my workplace, which is largely people like that, tech professionals that think they are hot shit even in the face of layoffs and obvious capitalist encroachment on their standard of living but i digress) are reachable and when the crisis deepens and their bougie sectors get hit even more than now, there is a chance more of them will start to feel the pain and want to engage in collective struggle and have some solidarity etc. so far the outlook is bleak, though, and I actually think a lot of the new lemmy peeps are people from that stratum
I like to remember that I am not posting to change the mind of the person who is wrong. I am posting for everyone else that reads the argument. The more stupid the person I am debating is the harder it is for anyone else to support their arguments.
Yeah, that's the best approach when you deal with these kinds of people.
Dick Gregory, based US activist who has been right about everything since the 1960s. He died fairly recently.
Yeah, but its okay to spare the effort if you want to.
This reminds me of a thought I had the other day, which went something like: some people (seems to be a US thing, can't speak for elsewhere) are so stuck with the mindset of approaching politics as, "I am on equal footing with you in terms of knowledge and understanding" that it's virtually impossible to get through on the information you give them alone. They have to first confront their socialized arrogance about knowledge and start to unlearn the idea that politics is some kind of easily universalized, mostly opinion-based entity.
Like if I look at my own progression of views, a significant difference in me being a "leftist" vs. being a "ML" (or thereabouts) was consciously trying to unlearn elitism and consciously trying to listen more (to marginalized people especially, but more importantly, to marginalized people who have theory/practice knowledge to impart, even if I didn't know it in those terms right away) and talk less (resist the urge to comment "because I can" and try to be more conscious of why I'm reacting the way I am if someone's take gets under my skin). This shift in mindset and attitude coupled with some partly guided exposure to theory was pivotal for me. I had a significant amount of "I can think smart so I can work this out just as well as you can" arrogance socializing to get through and a significant amount of viewing politics as overly simplistic in nature, and I see that same kind of attitude play out in other people, talking like their takes on politics have weight just because they are allowed to have one. When it's like no, halt the universalizing, you need a framework to work from with a conscious motive behind it and that is found in sincerely caring about the plight of working class people, the marginalized, the colonized, and applying what liberators have observed about it who came before and who still exist now in developing socialist projects. It is humbling to get a glimpse of the depth of combined theory and practice that exists and has existed, and I would say it's a good sign for people in the situation described if it is humbling because they are so often socialized to put their own intellect on a personal and cultural pedestal.
This is a beautifully-phrased thought and reflects my own experience. I think you described perfectly what it's like transitioning into being an ML feels like and how it changes your interactions with the world.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on it. I'm happy to hear it resonates. :)
